Uh-Oh: “The only time I ever see you is when you’re asking me for a donation”

September 9, 2013 erik Donor-centered fundraising, Fundraising, volunteers

stewardship1 Last week I was out with a friend for a glass of wine after work. We hadn’t seen each other in a few months, and we were catching up on lost time. “How are you? How is the new job? How’s your wife? Kids? Grandkids?” You know the drill. It was during this exchange that he dropped the bomb: “So, how is your partner? Ya know … the only time I ever see him is when he is asking me for a donation.”

I’ve been doing non-profit work for a long time now, and I’ve trained myself to recognize this for what it is worth. Whenever I hear donors say something like this, I immediately think of it as a cry for help. It is a donor who is screaming for attention. They want to know:

Was my contribution appreciated?
Is my contribution being put to work in the manner in which I was told it would be during the solicitation visit?
Is my contribution making an impact?

This is classic Penelope Burk stuff right out of her book “Donor Centered Fundraising“.

What does your donor communication program look like? Does it include:

newsletters
bulk email / eNewsletters
annual reports
impact bulletins
computer generated gift acknowledgement letters
handwritten letters
donor recognition societies (featuring stewardship activities)
donor receptions
donor surveys and focus groups

I suspect many of you utilize some of these best practices, but are you missing the most powerful and simple stewardship activity of them all? My gut feeling tells me that the answer to this question is probably ‘YES’.

If you are using a “prospect assignment process” that allows you to pair prospects with volunteer solicitors who they know well, then you need to take it one step further and design a stewardship program around those relationships.

You should not assume that two people who know each other fairly well don’t lose touch with each other. It happens all the time. Take a moment to mentally review everyone in your life with whom you own a phone call, email or letter. I bet that list is longer than you originally thought.

If you want to improve your donor loyalty rate (and stop losing donors for silly reasons), then I suggest you do these two simple things:

Amend your written volunteer solicitor job description to include one more task that includes two personal touches (e.g. phone call or sit-down meeting). The first conversation is a simple touch focused on saying thank you and updating them on how their contribution is being used. The second touch is equally as simple with a reiterated message of appreciation and an update on how their contribution is having an impact.
Develop a tickler system and poke your volunteers when it is time to make these two calls. We’re all busy, and reminders are necessary. You shouldn’t expect your volunteer solicitors to remember when stewardship calls should be made.

stewardship2 These personal touches do not have to be all about your non-profit organization. I suggest that you train your volunteers to be less obvious. For example, both stewardship touches could be as simple as three minutes worth of messaging in the middle of a lunch meeting or after-work cocktail. It should feel organic and nature. It shouldn’t feel forced or contrived.

Making these additions to your donor communication program will likely improve your donor loyalty rates, but it should also help your volunteers become better solicitors . . . less reluctant and more confident.

If there is one thing I hear all of the time from volunteers, it is how fearful they are with “over-soliciting” their friends for charitable gifts. I believe this is rooted in the fact that volunteers aren’t involved in the stewardship process. So, they have doubts that the right things are being done in between solicitation calls to demonstrate return on investment.

So why not involve them?

Oh yeah . . . there is one more added benefit to adding these tactics to your stewardship plan. You end up stewarding your volunteer solicitors at the same time because you are providing them updates to share with their friends and your donors.

Does your agency have something like this folded into its stewardship program (e.g. Moves Management)? If so, how well does it work for you? Have you tracked your success? What was the impact on your retention rates? What were your challenges and how did you overcome them? Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts and experiences. We can all learn from each other.

By the way, my partner is a subscriber to this blog. So, my shout out to him is: “I think you should reach out to you-know-who and schedule time to catch up over a glass of bourbon.” 😉

Here’s to your health!

Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Is your non-profit organization dead or alive or BOTH?

September 6, 2013 erik organizational development

Welcome to O.D. Fridays at DonorDreams blog. Every Friday for the foreseeable future we will be looking at posts from John Greco’s blog called “johnponders ~ about life at work, mostly” and applying his organizational development messages to the non-profit community.

In a post titled “Alive AND Dead,” John shares a thought experiment that was devised by Austrian physicist Irwin Schrodinger. It was a mind bending story about a box, a cat, poison, food and a conclusion that proves that the cat is dead AND alive until someone opens the box to check the situation out.

Yes . . . my friend, John Greco, shared a story that was used to demonstrate the nature of quantum mechanics in a blog post about organizational development.

Yes . . . I am going to go down the same rabbit hole this morning and apply all of this to non-profit organizations by sharing two stories. One story is about an organization that was both alive AND dead. The other story is about an executive director who was also both alive AND dead.

I encourage you to click through and read John’s post. But, if you haven’t done so already, please keep in mind that the basic premise to all of this is best summed up in John’s own words:

“It seems our perception is reality only until we see reality. In this sense, during times of great change, we can be living and working in a world that no longer exists if we do not actually see the changes in the world we are actually living and working in …”

The agency is alive AND dead

alice2 If I’ve seen it once, I’ve seen it hundreds of times. And I bet you have, too. I will omit the names to protect the innocent.

Once upon a time . . . there was a non-profit organization that everyone in the community looked upon as being big, strong and invincible. Their staff was well regarded. They had very impressive volunteers who sat on their board. They are what I describe as a “blue chip agency“.

Ask anyone in the community and they would tell you that the organization was awesome. Ask any donor what they thought, and they’d swear the agency was a terrific investment. Ask any of the agency’s board members, and they’d tell you that they can do ANYTHING (and they actually believe it). Ask the staff and you’d hear the same thing.

As the story goes . . . one day someone gets the bright idea to run a capital campaign and double the size of their existing facility. Donors are engaged. Millions of dollars are raised. The facility is expanded.

Putting aside the question of “alive vs. dead” . . . let’s re-frame it a little differently. Did this agency have the “organizational capacity” that everyone thought they did?

As we learn from John’s blog post, the answer is both ‘YES’ and ‘NO’ until you open the box and take a good look.

In this story . . . everyone perceived that organizational capacity existed; funding was secured based on those perceptions and the building was expanded. Unfortunately, when you looked a little deeper this organization didn’t have the capacity to raise the necessary annual operating dollars to run a facility twice its original size.

For a period of time, this agency was both alive AND dead.

The CEO is alive AND dead

alice3 We’ve also all seen this situation.

Once upon a time . . . there was an executive director who was well thought of by their peers. They were doing what was necessary to keep the agency together and everything moving in the right direction. Donors love the executive director. The staff would take a bullet for their boss. The board of directors continued to say nice things on the year-end evaluation.

This person seemingly had lots of job security, but one day everyone in the community wakes up to the news that the board voted to fire the CEO.

(Spoiler alert . . . before you start asking ‘who’ is Erik talking about, let me confess that this example is an amalgamation of many different situations that I’ve seen over time.)

So, what happened to precipitate this reversal of good fortune for the executive director? Here are just a few real life explanations that I’ve seen turn things upside down very quickly:

A major grant or funding source is lost and great stress descends upon the agency.
One employee decides they should be the executive director and starts rocking the boat.
One board member has been unhappy for quite some time about (insert issue here) and decides to stop being quiet. They finally have the courage to stand up in the face of general contentment and makes it an issue, which gets traction quickly.

For a period of time, this executive director was both alive AND dead.

The moral to these stories?

head in sand A non-profit organization that doesn’t invest time and resources into evaluation and critique is akin to an ostrich sticking its head in the sand.

Does your agency . . .

Host a critique meeting after each of its special event fundraisers?
Formally evaluate its executive director at the end of every year?
Host a critique meeting after its annual campaign pledge drive?
Formally evaluate every board board volunteer at the end of every year?
Host an annual meeting for donors to learn more about your agency? And survey your donors to solicit feedback on how they think you’re doing and what you can do better?
Formally evaluate every employee at the end of the year?

If you answered ‘NO to any of these questions, there there is a possibility that your organization is both . . .

Dead AND Alive

As always, John sums it up better than I can, when he says:

“Help people look into the box. One key component of change management is communicating the need for change early and often. It is selling the problem. It is noting the forces and effects that require change. It is articulating the “burning platform.” It is projecting out in compelling fashion what the consequences are if we don’t begin transitioning.”

Is your organization dead? Is it alive? Is it BOTH? Using John’s words, what does your agency do to “help people look into the box“? By the way, I know someone who can help you look inside that box and provide an outsider’s perspective. 😉

Here’s to your health!

Non-profit governance: The work of the board, part 4

September 4, 2013 erik Board governance, Fundraising

Dani Robbins is the Founder & Principal Strategist at Non Profit Evolution located in Columbus, Ohio. I’ve invited my good friend and fellow non-profit consultant to the first Wednesday of each month about board development related topics. Dani also recently co-authored a book titled “Innovative Leadership Workbook for Nonprofit Executives” that you can find on Amazon.com.

Governance: The Work of the Board, part 4

Raising Money

By Dani Robbins

board fundraising Welcome to part four of our five part series on Governance. We have already discussed the Board’s role in Hiring, Supporting and Evaluating the Executive, Acting as the Fiduciary Responsible Agent, and Setting Policy. Today, let’s discuss the Board’s role in raising money.

As previously mentioned, Boards are made up of appointed community leaders who are collectively responsible for governing an organization. As outlined in my favorite Board book Governance as Leadership and summarized in The Role of the Board, the Fiduciary Mode is where governance begins for all boards and ends for too many. I encourage you to also explore the Strategic and Generative Modes of Governance, which will greatly improve your board’s engagement, and also their enjoyment.

At a minimum, governance includes:

Setting the Mission, Vision and Strategic Plan
Hiring, Supporting and Evaluating the Executive Director
Acting as the Fiduciary Responsible Agent
Raising Money and
Setting Policy

One of my goals for this blog is to rectify the common practice in the field of people telling nonprofit executives and boards how things should be done without any instruction as to what that actually means or how to accomplish it.

What “Board members being responsible for raising money” means is:

The Board sets the fund raising (also called resource development) goal; embarks on the campaign; opens doors; introduces staff; “makes the ask” when they’re the most likely person to get a yes (regardless of title or ranking, you always send the person who is most likely to get a yes to a gift request); picks up the tab for lunch when possible; and thanks the donor. The Board is also responsible for setting the strategic plan which may include a goal to increase contributed income. Each Board member should be expected to make a significant gift, reflective of their personal circumstances, as well as raise additional money.

I do not recommend give or get policies.

Give or get policies allow Board members to avoid personally giving; and 100% Board giving is critical for a successful campaign. Potential donors will ask if there is 100% Board giving, and the answer must be “yes“. Why should anyone else support an organization whose Board members do not? Moreover, how can you ask for someone else to financially support an organization you do not financially support? I can hear someone out there saying “I give of my time,” and that is wonderful, but it’s not enough. Board members should also financially support the organizations they serve.

I also don’t recommend set giving requirements.

Set giving policies, intended to be minimum gifts, actually end up being the entire gift. Such policies alienate potential board members who may bring a lot to the table but cannot personally give at the set level. It also leaves money on the table for people who can give more. Finally, it eliminates the Resource Development Committee’s opportunity to seek out and personally ask each Board member for a specific (to their circumstances and level of engagement) gift. It takes away the chance to say thank you for your engagement, removes the possibility to steward Board members as donors and minimizes the chance of a larger gift. Any policy that works against your goals is not a good policy.

The Board cannot and is not expected to raise money alone.

The staff is responsible for training the Board; coordinating the assignments; preparing the askers with relevant donor information; drafting and supplying whatever written information will be left with the donor, including a case statement (also called case for support) and a letter asking for a specific dollar amount; attending the ask meetings as appropriate; documenting the meeting in the database; writing the formal thank you note; and creating a plan to steward (or circle back to) the donor going forward.

The executive director cannot raise money alone. The development director cannot raise money alone. Fundraising works best in a culture of philanthropy when both the staff and the Board are working together to increase contributed income.

What’s been your experience? As always, I welcome your insight and experience.

What is your non-profit predicament?

August 30, 2013 erik Uncategorized

In a post titled “My Predicament Is Not My Problem,” John makes a distinction between things that are “problems” and things that are “predicaments“. In short, he talks about how predicaments are a special kind of problem that require different leadership skill sets and approaches.

Here is how John sums it up:

“And, while predicaments are (of course) problems, they aren’t problems that can be solved in any ordinary problem solving way. And therein lies the problem. For when leaders treat predicaments like problems — analyzing the components, fast-acting on this part or slow-tweaking that part, they make their predicaments worse.”

predicament2 I find this distinction really fascinating, and I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it since I read this post. So, I’ve been focused on identifying some non-profit related “predicaments” and here is what I’ve come up with . . .

Over the last decade, donors’ needs have shifted. Investing in an organization’s mission isn’t enough anymore. They want to see results . . . outcomes . . . data. But wait! That stuff is boring and they want it all wrapped up in an engaging narrative that is spun by someone who is a good storyteller. Too much data or too much storytelling, and the whole experiment in philanthropy seems to fall short.
The Great Recession started in 2007 with a stock market crash occurring in 2008. Before the crash, many non-profit agencies’ fundraising plans appeared to work well enough to get them what they needed to function. After the crash — what some people are calling ‘The New Normal’ — those same fundraising plans for some agencies don’t seem to work as well, but abandoning the plan and starting from scratch doesn’t appear practical or reasonable.
In the middle part of the 20th Century, non-profit boards were composed of local business leaders who were CEOs and owners of local businesses. Fast forward to the end of the 20th Century and the early 2000’s, and big box stores have replaced locally owned businesses. CEOs and business owners are located in major cities and in some cases halfway around the world. Many non-profit boards are full of middle managers, and many people are left asking “Who will be the next generation of big time local philanthropists?“

In John’s post, he talks about needing a special kind of skill set to solve “predicaments“. Specifically, he points to interpretative thinking skills, patience, and sustained attentiveness.

Heading into this Labor Day weekend, I’m asking you to scroll down to the comment box below and consider doing two things:

Share your opinion on whether or not the three things I’ve identified above are “problems” or “predicaments” or neither. You are also welcome to talk about other “predicaments” you see in the non-profit sector or at home in your agency.
Do you or others in your agency possess the special skill sets that are identified as being necessary to handle “predicaments“? Are there other skills you think are necessary? If you, your employees and your board don’t possess these skills, how are you planning to acquire them?

Enjoy the long weekend and please take a moment to contemplate and respond to these questions. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Do your board members gather around the campfire?

August 26, 2013 erik Board development, Fundraising

campfire Recently, I’ve been doing a lot of what I consider “Nonprofit 101” trainings focused on board roles and responsibilities. After talking with board members about their fiduciary responsibilities, they often push back on their role in fundraising. I’m becoming really good at giving them the “sympathetic smile,” which communicates that I’m hearing their fear but not giving them permission to wash their hands of their role in resource development.

After my last training, I literally had three board volunteers standing around the room waiting for a private moment with me. Each one told me how much they appreciated the content, and sure enough each one made their way around to the subject of fundraising. My mouth hurt that evening from a lot of sympathetic smiling. 🙂

While driving home, I couldn’t stop thinking about each of those three board members. Their stories were all the same:

They are passionate about the organization.
They love serving on the board.
They were asked to serve because they brought a certain skill set or relationships (e.g. mostly access to their company).
They know there is more they to do.
They know how important fundraising is.
They see the organization’s need for money.
They are just very reluctant . . . it doesn’t feel right to ask their friends for money. They mention a few fears, and worse yet they say it feels like begging.
They promise to try harder.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this in the last few months. And in some strange way, I find it endearing which probably explains how I’ve mastered the art of the sympathetic smile.

Getting back to my drive home . . .

With nothing more than windshield time in front of me, my mind started wandering. I started thinking about a recent DVD purchase I made from 501 Videos of Tom Ahern talking about writing. As a bonus, they tossed in a 32 page mini-publication from Chris Davenport titled “Nonprofit Storytelling for Board members“.

As the blurry miles whizzed by me, a thought finally struck:

Stop pushing those reluctant board members into something they find
FRIGHTENING!
Instead, focus on something they will find less objectionable
like turning them into great storytellers.

fear After all, how scary can it be to “tell stories,” right?

And when you boil down a fundraising solicitation visit, isn’t it mostly a series of stories followed-up with an ask?

So, it stood to reason in my travel weary head that teaching reluctant board members how to tell stories is 90 percent of the battle.

After a few days of reflecting on this thought and a number of cups of coffee, I still think this is a great idea. So, I dusted off that “Nonprofit Storytelling for Board Members” book this morning in an effort to figure out where someone should start.

Luckily for me, the answer is easily found on page 4 where Chris Davenport says, “Here are three stories you need to concentrate on perfecting first . . .”

Your Involvement Story
An Impact Story
A Thank You Story

So, there you have it folks . . . if you have board members who HATE fundraising, I think you should teach them how to be a good storyteller and start with the three stories identified above.

What? You think it isn’t as easy as that? There is more to storytelling than what meets the eye?

OK . . . you’re probably right, which is why Chris Davenport goes on in his mini-book to talk about:

The 4 C’s of Storytelling
Emotions vs Facts
Story Structure
Seven Story Triggers
And much, much more

I suggest that you go buy the book. It is only $7.95. Such as deal! Click here if you want to learn more and possibly order this amazing little pocketbook resource. (Disclaimer: I do not profit in any way from you purchasing that book. This is not a paid advertisement. I don’t even know Chris.)

Do you have board members who are reluctant to fulfill their fundraising roles and responsibilities? How have you dealt with it effectively? Have you tried to teach your board volunteers how to be good storytellers? If so, how did that work for you and what lessons did you learn?

Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts and experiences. We can ALL learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

What are your non-profit agency’s foolish consistency and hobgoblins?

August 23, 2013 erik Fundraising, Planning

In a post titled “Adoring Hobgoblins,” John dissects the following quotation from Ralph Waldo Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” He explains to readers that consistency can be a good thing, but it suddenly becomes a bad thing when it interferes with our good judgement and results in poor actions.

Reading this Emerson quotation set my mind down two different paths this morning. So, what the heck? Let’s go down two roads this morning.

Don’t have a written resource development plan?

It is a best practice in my book to engage board members and fundraising volunteers every year in a process that results in a written resource development plan (aka fundraising plan). It should provide definition and explanation to the revenue side of your agency budget.

Do you know how many non-profit organizations — big and small — with which I’ve worked that don’t do this? OMG . . . it is a crazy BIG number.

So, what do those organizations do if they aren’t operating with a resource development plan?

Yep . . . you guessed it. They are relying on “consistency” and sometimes it is “foolish consistency“.

For example, one organization I worked with many years ago didn’t see the need to develop an annual fundraising plan and pointed to their special event fundraisers as something they’ve been doing forever. One of their events had been run for more than two decades.

Their conclusion . . . “why waste time — that we don’t have — on writing this stuff down, especially when it hasn’t changed in two decades?”

hobgoblin Well, huh? Let me see here. Every good planning process begins with an assessment /evaluation which springboards off into goal setting, strategy development and action planning. If the organization I just referenced hadn’t been so “foolishly consistent,” they would’ve seen the following:

The revenue from their signature event plateaued 13 years ago and has been in steady decline ever since
Many of the people attending their event sit at corporate tables, and they do so anonymously. There were no strategies in place to capture individual donor data, which means the cultivation effect of that event is lost on those people.
Many of the individuals who were die-hard supporters of that event were likely capable and willing to contribute more, but there were no upgrade strategies in place. So, money was being left on the table.
There were hundreds of donors over a 20 year time span who had attended this event a few times and then stopped. There were no strategies to re-engage those lapsed donors either in the event or other places in the agency’s resource development plan.

If I’m not mistaken, these four bullet points are the personification of that “hobgoblin” in Emerson’s famous quotation. And, boy oh boy, what an ugly little hobgoblin it is.

I know that some people think of planning processes as a “foolish consistency“. I obviously DO NOT! In fact, I see it as just the opposite. A well-run planning process of any kind should:

help your organization look at things differently
keep a fresh perspective
engage in dynamic brainstorming
inspire change that keeps your agency’s growing

This brings me to the last portion of Emerson’s quotation “. . . adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines“. I would love to add the words “board volunteers and agency staff“.

small mind The board members and executive director of the agency I reference in the example above certainly were “little“. I say this because their “foolish consistency” and unwillingness to do any assessment and planning had locked them into being a certain size. When you looked at their agency budget, they had brought in the same amount of revenue for the last 10 years.

Think about that for a moment. When you factor in inflation, this agency was contracting and raising less and less money every year. Foolish? Yes! Hobgoblins? Yes!! YES!! Little? Yes!!! Yes!!! Yes!!!

If your agency operates with a December 31st year-end fiscal year, then your budget construction process should be starting soon. If this is the case, then your resource development planning process should also be starting soon.

Do you need help with that planning process? If so, I know someone you should call who can help . . . you know who I mean. 😉

The other road referenced?

In the beginning of this blog post, I said John’s post centered on Ralph Waldo Emerson’s quotation set my mind down two different paths this morning.

When I first read John’s post, I immediately thought of how many times I’ve heard from non-profit board members, executive directors and fundraising professionals the following words:

“That’s not the way we do things around here”

Not only are these words (or other words that sound or mean the same thing) the equivalent of nails on a chalkboard, but they are downright poisonous to your non-profit organization.

I’ve run out of space, but luckily Seth Godin did a nice job of succinctly and eloquently addressing this issue on his blog. If you have 15 more seconds, then you really need to click-through and read Seth’s thoughts on these nine dangerous words.

Can you identify your agency’s “silly consistencies“? If so, what are they? Can you describe those hobgoblins? If so, what do they look like? Please scroll down and share your examples and thoughts as well as what you plan on doing about it in the comment box below. Why? Because we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Raising money — one, unproductive $5 sale at a time

August 22, 2013 erik Fundraising

Dani Robbins is the Founder & Principal Strategist at Non Profit Evolution located in Columbus, Ohio. Dani typically blogs about board development and governance related topics on the first Wednesday of each month, but I just couldn’t resist publishing this awesome piece that she wrote about fundraising. Dani also recently co-authored a book titled “Innovative Leadership Workbook for Nonprofit Executives” that you can find on Amazon.com.

Raising money — one, unproductive $5 sale at a time

By Dani Robbins
Originally published at Akron Beacon Journal and Ohio.com

My daughter recently has been asked to raise money for three organizations: our school PTA, our Temple and Girl Scouts. Last year, she raised money for the American Heart Association’s Jump-A-Thon. She is an amazing fund-raiser. I am incredibly proud of her. She’s 7.

We get a weekly fund-raising request from one organization or another – Market Days, sign up your grocery card, click this website — once a day. Can this really be our plan?

I do not want to go to our friends and family three different times (or more) this season alone to ask for $1 to $30 each time. They do not want to buy nuts, a magazine or an entertainment book. (OK, they may want to buy that.) They will buy whatever my daughter is selling to support her, just as I will buy whatever their children are selling to support them.

When I was a kid, we took our UNICEF cans along with us as we went trick or treating. I walked in the MS Walk-A-Thon, and I probably would have sold Girl Scout cookies had I stuck around long enough. My parents gave blood, supported a variety of charities and taught my brother and me that we each had an obligation to work to make the world a better place. I teach my children the same thing. Yet, even so, I keep thinking: “What are we doing?”

People give to people. I know it well. I’ve lived it. I teach it professionally.

Seventy-five percent of all giving in the United States in 2009 was individual giving. That’s giving, not buying. That may be why this makes me so crazy. lt’s because I know that selling things to raise money $5 at a time is not a good use of anyone’s time or precious resources.

Wouldn’t it be easier if the institution’s leader, or whomever you know the best, said: “We need this much money at a minimum, can you please invest in us – volunteer or support us financially or better yet, both?”

Some people don’t readily have an extra few bucks but have some time and are very willing to work to support institutions they believe in. Others have a few extra bucks they are willing to share, but no time. Some, who are a blessing to their communities, share freely of their time, and also their resources.

kidsselling2 There are exceptions to my general rule of “no selling”. The Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts sell cookies and popcorn very well. Their troops, which are volunteer-led, rely on those sales for most of their troop activities. Good for them! There are also
people who buy things who would never think to write a check to an organization. (To those people, I ask you to please find an organization that you believe in and write a check. Why should you? Because you can — and they need your help.)

The main reason that I advocate against selling things, in addition to the significant safety issues for our children, is the minimal return for the organization. Our community’s organizations have to raise money. They can spend time figuring out what to sell, coordinating the sale, selling and collecting money from the sale. Or they can spend time creating a plan to ask individuals for money, asking, thanking people and telling them what they did with their money.

Which is a better use of our time and energy? Which is a better return for the organization? Hands down, I advocate the latter.

Other than Scouting, let’s stop selling things or, at a minimum, asking our children to sell things. Let’s build our ability to ask for money. Let’s thank people for their money. Let’s tell them what we did with their money. Let’s keep them engaged. Let’s talk more about what our institutions contribute to our community and what they truly need to be viable. When our community’s institutions are viable, we are all better off.

This post was originally published at Akron Beacon Journal and Ohio.com and is republished with the permission of Dani Robbins. You can find this article at: http://www.ohio. com/editorial/commentary/’l 04925649. html

Please stop using the economy as your whipping post

August 21, 2013 erik Fundraising

Yesterday, I was on the phone with a board volunteer. We were talking about their organization’s annual campaign efforts. In the middle of that conversation, this volunteer launched into a full-blown rant about the state of the economy and why no one has any money anymore to give to charity. It was all I could do to keep from screaming. I am so tired of hearing this kind of thing.

I know. I know. Things are still tight. Recovery is slow. Some people are still hurting terribly. We’ll most likely never return to the days we knew before the Great Recession. There is a New Normal.

However, please humor me and take a look at the following chart from the Giving USA Foundation which was published on the National Philanthropic Trust blog:

charitable giving stats

Do you see what I see?

2007 was the high water mark for charitable giving
2008 and 2009 were nightmares. As our economy entered a state of free fall, so too did charitable giving
We’ve seen very positive growth in 2010, 2011 and 2012

We haven’t recovered everything that was lost in the crash. I suspect that will take many more years . . . BUT the growth is real and the sector isn’t in a state of free fall anymore. We’ve come out of the tunnel, and we’ve been on the other side for quite some time. It may not be what we had hoped for, but this is what recovery looks like. Deal with it!

excuses I am of the opinion that those of us who still use the economy to explain our shortcomings are simply making excuses. In fact, let me take it a step further. Invoking the economy to explain your poor fundraising performance is nothing short of excuse making.

If you have a moment, please click-through to the National Philanthropic Trust blog. They have captured a number of very nice philanthropy statistics all in one place. Here are just a few that I find interesting:

88% of households give to charity.
The average annual household contribution is $2,213 while the mean is $870.
Charitable giving accounted for 2% of gross domestic product in 2010

I am not suggesting that “Happy Days Are Here Again,” but can we please stop the excuse making?

If your fundraising efforts are dragging, there are likely many other explanations other than the straw-man argument of the economy. Furthermore, if you accept the economy as the reason, then you are likely blinded to all of the other reasons. Here are just a few of those possible explanations:

You have the wrong people sitting around the table
You’re using the wrong campaign model for the talent you’ve assembled around your table
You’re not stewarding your donors correctly
Your focus is too much on donor acquisition and not enough on donor retention
Your case for support is stale and not as compelling as it used to be

This list can go on and on, but you’ll never know the real reasons unless you invest in evaluation efforts and reject silly explanations such as “the economy ate my homework“.

So, what should an executive director or fundraising professional do when faced with volunteers who refuse to face facts?

Be a leader!

I’m not suggesting you tell volunteers they are wrong. Don’t launch into a full-blown rant like I’ve done this morning. But leaders lead and you may want to try doing the following:

Empathize . . . they are grieving the lack of results from their collective efforts
Agree with what is obvious (e.g. the economy is sluggish)
Inject truth into the conversation (e.g. people are still giving, donors are still being generous, charitable giving has rebounded nationally over the last three years)
Suggest that a more thorough critique of your situation might help uncover more facts that will help you make adjustments to next year’s efforts
Stand tall and make the case for thoughtful evaluation, ROI calculation and critique

There is a New Normal in America when it comes to the economy. What you did before the recession might not work now quite the same way it did back then. They only way to fix this situation is to not accept excuses like the economy, discover the real reasons, and put new strategies in place to deal with the New Normal.

I am tired of the excuses. In fact, I believe accepting those excuses is dangerous for your non-profit organization because it keeps you from moving forward. Do you agree? If so, how are you dealing with it? Have you had any success in moving your volunteers forward? Please use the comment box to share your success stories and strategies. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Those shiny fundraising tools in your resource development toolbox

August 19, 2013 erik Fundraising

personal pages Jeff Bezos has been on my mind lately. Of course, he is the 49-year-old owner of Amazon.com, and this internet pioneer recently purchased one of the iconic old media newspapers — The Washington Post — for $250 million. It was no more than a few days after this announcement that I was talking to a non-profit board volunteer about fundraising when I was reminded of this famous Jeff Bazos quotation: “A company shouldn’t get addicted to being shiny, because shiny doesn’t last.”

Here is how the fundraising conversation with the board member went:

Board member: “Erik, I am so happy with our agency’s foray into online fundraising. I especially LOVE these ‘personal pages’ where I set-up my online page and email a link to everyone in my email address book.”
Erik: “Why do you like this new fundraising strategy so much?“
Board member: “For starters, it is so easy and doesn’t take much time. Who has time to do fundraising the way we used to do it? Chasing down friends — who also don’t have time — and ask them for money when they don’t really want to be asked.”
Erik: “Ummmm … well, hopefully there wasn’t a lot of ‘chasing’ and ‘forcing’ going on. Fundraising should be more about connecting people’s philanthropic wishes with opportunities. We’re not stalking people and stealing their money.“
Board member: “Well, I just hated sitting down with my friends. It was so uncomfortable. Now, with these new ‘personal pages,’ I don’t have to do that anymore.”
Erik: “Ummmm … that can’t be entirely true, right? I mean you should still be sitting down with large donors because it isn’t very respectful to ask donors of a certain size to simply ‘click and give,’ right?“
Board member: “I guess, but I’m not really focused on ‘those donors’. Staff can take care of those individuals.”
Erik: “How do you ask donors to consider making a specific sized contribution that is commensurate with their capacity and willingness to give to your agency?“
Board member: “I really don’t worry about that either. I just ask them to give whatever they feel like donating, and the contributions rolled in! I can’t believe it, but my response rate has been approximately 30%. Many people are giving $25 and $50. A few people even donated more than $100. The biggest contribution was $200. I just can’t believe it!“
Erik: “I have some concerns about taking the personal touch out of your organization’s resource development program. Hopefully, these personal pages are simply one small strategy focused on the very bottom rung or two of your range of gifts chart. Or is it your agency’s new ‘donor acquisition’ strategy… like direct mail?“
Board member: “Oh Erik … this is the future of fundraising!“

I’m not going to provide too much commentary in today’s post because I suspect you can read between the lines.

unintended consequences I am a huge proponent of using technology and integrating it into your non-profit organization’s fundraising program, but it shouldn’t be introduced in a way that undercuts the other best practices embedded in your resource development plan.

If your board members are ultra-reluctant fundraisers and you can’t introduce something like “personal pages” into your fundraising tool box without killing your annual campaign, then I suggest taking a pass on those opportunities for now. Timing is everything. Right?

Moreover, the Jeff Bezos quotation reminds us that shiny objects don’t remain shiny forever. So, what happens when those personal pages (or whatever the new online fundraising tool you’re using) become burdensome to volunteers and they resist using it?

My suggestion is that you fix the underlying problems and stop trying to deal with symptoms. If your volunteers are reluctant fundraisers, then help them overcome their fears or recruit additional board members who aren’t reluctant. Don’t just paper over their fears or blind them with shiny objects.

Please don’t misunderstand what I’m trying to say. I am not opposed to online giving. I am not against peer-to-peer web-based personal pages. I am concerned about misuse and unintended consequences.

Has your agency started using personal pages to support board volunteer’s peer-to-peer solicitation with their circle of influence? If so, what has been the result? Have individual board members raised more, less or about the same in year-to-year comparisons? Have you seen any ill effects of introducing a shiny new object into your fundraising tool box?

Please scroll down and share your thoughts and experiences in the comment box below.

Here’s to your health!

What revenue model is your non-profit agency using?

August 15, 2013 erik Board development, Fundraising

source of funds More than a year ago, I stumbled upon a fun article published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) titled “Ten Nonprofit Funding Models“. It provided clarity for me around what I was seeing in the non-profit sector. So, I bookmarked it and re-read it from time-to-time. Recently, I’ve found myself talking to a number of different non-profit professionals and board volunteers about this article, which is usually a sure sign that I better blog about it.

As you know, there are many different types of organizations calling themselves members of the non-profit sector.

Churches
Universities
Hospitals
Arts organizations
Membership organizations (e.g. chamber of commerce, etc)
Human Services/Social Services

Each of these types of non-profit organizations look very different. Each board has different wrinkles, and their revenue models also take on a different complexion.

The SSIR article by William Landes Foster, Peter Kim, & Barbara Christiansen names and describes ten different funding models:

Heartfelt Connector
Beneficiary Builder
Member Motivator
Big Bettor
Public Provider
Policy Innovator
Beneficiary Broker
Resource Recycler
Market Maker
Local Nationalizer

Some of you are probably wondering what each of these models means. I encourage you to click-through to the SSIR article and read it for yourself. Those authors do a great job of breaking down each of the models.

What I’ve found myself talking to many non-profit professionals and board members about lately isn’t which revenue model they’re using. My conversations have been rooted in what the authors of this article say in their final few paragraphs:

“In the current economic climate it is tempting for nonprofit leaders to seek money wherever they can find it, causing some nonprofits to veer off course. That would be a mistake. During tough times it is more important than ever for nonprofit leaders to examine their funding strategy closely and to be disciplined about the way that they raise money. We hope that this article provides a framework for nonprofit leaders to do just that.”

In my opinion, it is so true that many non-profit organizations have sought money wherever they can find it, especially once they realized that the economy isn’t going to just snap back into place and we now find ourselves in a “New Normal”.

board of directors4 So, the conversations I’ve been referencing throughout this post have to do with board development and not the actual revenue models.

I believe that non-profit organizations build their boards around their revenue model. For example, if your agency is highly dependent on fees, then you probably haven’t recruited world-class fundraising volunteers to sit on your board. The same holds true for organizations with a government funding revenue model.

So, when you start tinkering with your revenue model (e.g. adding an event, pledge drive, direct mail, etc), I believe it creates tension in the boardroom for two reasons:

You’re asking people to do something that wasn’t part of the original deal.
You’re also asking people to do something they aren’t likely good at doing.

If you find yourself in the position of having to tweak your revenue model, I suggest the following:

Facilitate a conversation in the boardroom and build consensus around the idea of changing or tweaking your revenue model. Make sure all consequences are understood and appreciated.
Ask your board governance committee to complete a new gap assessment based upon some of the new roles you’re asking board members to take on.
Focus your board recruitment efforts on bringing in new board volunteers to help fill your newly identified gaps.
Allow current board members to step off the board gracefully and help them find a new seat on the bus where they can still participate in your mission.
If you need a blended board to make your blended revenue model work, then deliberately talk about roles and responsibilities in the board room to avoid misunderstandings between volunteers.

The New Normal may have thrown your organization a curveball, but it doesn’t mean you need to go through a dysfunctional transition. A little bit of thoughtfulness and board engagement can go a long way.

Did you click-through and read the Stanford Social Innovation Review article? If so, what were your thoughts? Which revenue model is your agency using? Do you find yourself tweaking your revenue model in an effort to adapt to The New Normal? How is your board handling the transition?

Please scroll down and share your thoughts and observations in the comment box below. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!